Topic: Why I rejected Evolution while I was still an atheist... (Read 5906 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** October 16, 2005, 11:54:35 PM »

In another thread somewhere I corrected a misconception about me in regards to my approach to evolution. The premise around town seems to be that my rejection of evolution proceeded from my acceptance of God, Christianity, creationism, or intelligent design. But it did not. I rejected (and still reject) evolution on its own merits, quite independantly of some of the other things I have come to favor.

This thread is auto-biographical. I am not intended to specifically argue for my position so much as I am trying to explain it. It is my position. I came about it on my own. I had many arguments about 12 years ago as I was hashing it through with all sorts of people, but my point here is not to argue it. Obviously, I still believe it to be true, or else I wouldn't believe it. That means that it is something that in another context I would be glad to argue- just not hear.

Also, I doubt the chronology was as cut and dried as it is listed below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

When I had decided to start from the bottom up, the first thing that I did was adopt a position similar to Descarte's "I think therefore I am." More simply, though, I realized two things:

1. My existence is undeniable to myself.
2. My existence is contingent.

I could not deny that I existed, regardless of the solipsisitc possibilities that perhaps I didn't. Also, there was a time when I was not, so some explanation for my being needed to be derived.

In realizing this, I realized that contingency could not regress infinitely.

3. There had to be something that was non-contingent.

At this point in my journey, I didn't know what it was, but after a short time I narrowed it down to being either the 'universe' or 'God.' In a nutshell, either there was a non-contingent impersonal reality or ther ewas a contingent personal reality. The possibility that the non-contingent personal reality was the same in essence as the universe was explored and rejected (and there went Buddhism and Hinduism... 'bye bye').

However, in order for me to trust any of these conclusions, I had one other thing that I had to account for first, before I could really trust any further inquiry. That is,

4. I cannot deny my own rationality.

That is not to say that I sometimes do not do irrational things or hold irrational beliefs. Indeed, I can sometimes detect and expose them. And obviously I don't win every chess game I play. But I appeared to be able to make sense of reality as presented to me by my senses, even going so far as to be able to make judgments about reality within my mind alone without sense data being available, later discovering that these judgments were correct once the data was available.

A. My rationality was undeniable, but it needed to be accounted for.
B. My existence was undeniable, but it needed to be accounted for.
C. My contingency was undeniable, but it needed to be accounted for.
D. That there was a non-contingent reality follows from the strength of A as being reliable in making deductions from B and C.

My rationality was the ether in which everything else moved, and it needed explanation. I couldn't take the chump's way out and 'just assume it.'

So, then I had to explore my options in regards to the reliability of my own epistemology. How could I be confident that when I thought I knew something, I really did know it?

A strict materialistic approach was rejected. If my brain is nothing more than a particular combination of atoms, then it cannot be known, in principle, if my reasoning and memories and experiences were legitimately gained over time and musing, or rather created in an instant in that particular combination.

If you are familiar with Norton's 'Ghost' program it illustrates this situation nicely. Norton's Ghost program takes a snapshot of your hard drive and makes a back up copy of the whole darn thing. Even though your hard drive is the result of 'reasoning and memories and experiences legitimately gained over time' you can capture the final state of those processes to an 'image.' Then, you can copy that image to another hard drive, and it will be exactly like the other hard drive.

If your brain is like that hard drive, and you are strictly a particular arrangement of atoms just like a hard drive is just a particular arrangement of 1's and 0's, then you as a hard drive can never RELIABLY KNOW whether you are the snapshot or the experienced hard drive.

A strict materialism reduces us to solipsism, I realized. If materialism is true, then I cannot say that I know it with any real certainty. Saying materialism is true is the same as saying that my particular atoms are in a state to say that materialism is true. In theory, those atoms could have me saying ANYTHING is true. Knowledge is dead in a strict materialism.

You can see the first serious bends towards theism.

However, the theory of evolution claimed to be able to account for biological life by invoking strictly materialistic processes. However, as I dug into the theory I discovered that its proponents were almost completely oblivious to this larger question about how we know that what we know is real knowledge. I was again faced with people (that I argued with online) who told me that we were just supposed to assume our rationality as a given fact but there was no point in accounting for it. This was, in my view, obviously inconsistent and contradictory with their own efforts, as I could just as easily have said that I wanted to assume our biological state as a given fact and not look for any accounting for THAT, either.

Indeed, I found that evolution had nothing intelligent at all to say about why we should trust our senses and our brain, besides the 'hard drive problem' I listed above. I have only in the last few years come across material talking about such matters, like the Churchlands. Its still not very impressive, and it doesn't do anything to help evolution since they typically assume evolution in advance- a tactic that is nothing more than a cheap parlor trick.

However, I probed deeper. The situation only got worse. Evolution only said that biological organisms were selected insofar as they were able to survive to reproduce. A bare minimum correlation to reality was required by such a system. One thing is sure, you don't need rationality to survive to reproduce, as plants, trees, algae, frogs, ants, moss, and toe jam all attest to.

I realized that the best that evolution could ever tell me about my own ability to KNOW is that I know enough about reality so as to not die before I'm able to crank out some kids. Maybe water is something entirely other than what it is, but what I think it is is enough to help me survive by drinking (whatever THAT is) it and not breathing it. Etc, etc, etc.

Evolution, like strict materialism, reduced me to solipsism, directly contradicting #4 above.

Worse, in terms of epistemology, I was greatly disappointed by the whole theory and have come to consider it the greatest insult to the human race, ever. Its conceptualized idiocy. We are told we DID evolve and the evidence for this is how we COULD have evolved.

For example, I once argued a long time ago with an evolutionist telling me about how it was possible for the eye to evolve. I kept telling him I didn't particularly care how it was possible. I wanted to see evidence that it DID. He then trotted out the old fairy tale about the light sensitive spot and provided a link to a web page that had some 700 intermediates between that light sensitive cell and the human eye. (This was a long time ago, it may have been the 'modern eye'). I asked if we could reproduce in the lab any of those alleged sequences. Pick any one of the 700 and reproduce the next three that were alleged to follow.

"Don't be ridiculous, that's unreasonable" he said.

I guess I have a different idea about what should make us say something 'did' happen as opposed to merely 'could possibly' happened.

(Obviously, progressing any one step in that intermediate scale two or three steps is immensley prohibitive to the point of being fundamentally impossible. Invoking the mechanisms that the evolutionists invoke, these intermediate steps in the eye were also accompanied by intermediate steps in the brains, skulls, nerve connections, and other major morphological intermediary steps relating to reproduction, and other biological systems.

Of course, we 'know' we evolved but no one anywhere can tell us anything about exactly how any of these steps actually DID happen. We are supposed to be satisfied by a very minimal construct that might explain how it COULD have happened.)

I then followed up with a request to hear him predict what the next step in eye development would be, then. We are 700 steps down the line, if evolutionary theory is good for anything (and so far it seemed it was good for nothing) perhaps it can predict what the eye in step 701 will be like. After some hemming and hawing when this particular evolutionist had to decide whether or not he thought he was best to argue that the eye had reached its final spot on the chain (after all, we seem to have a pretty remarkably refined functioning organ, 'blind spot' be d--ned), he admitted that he could make no such predictions.

I asked him- and I have asked other since, whether they can predict any concrete specific changes to any morphological system, and the best I've gotten is retroactive analysis. For example, it is sometimes offered that sickle cell anemia and its resistance to malaria is a good example of a change predicted by evolution, but that's retroactive. That's just finding a piece of our biological system that doesn't seem to work all that well normally, but we can come up with a good use for it, anyway. But that's not what I wanted. Would the human race become predominantly sickle celled, or not? What does evolution predict? Is anyone willing to put money down on some concrete predictions on the future evolutionary steps of the human race and other organisms?

So, I concluded that if evolution were true, I couldn't really know it was true. It had cut off the branch I was standing on to evaluate it. Furthermore, if it were true, it was unimportant. It couldn't tell me anything concrete about specific changes in the past or predict specific changes in the future. So what good is it? Is the best that evolution can give us the argument that we should take our full course of antibiotics if we get sick? Is that all?

So, I rejected evolution on epistemological grounds and on utilitarian grounds. If it was true, I reasoned that reason could not in principle be considered reasonable. That was a high price to pay for a theory that would not and could not impact the human race on any substantive level, ever.

Let the evolutionists believe their 'just so' story of the eye coming from a light sensitive spot. If they wanted to think it 'did' happen because it 'could' happen (something I obviously question as well, given that its never been experimentally observed), more power to them. I was interested in knowing things that could be reliably known, however.

After this, I began searching for ways that would satisfactorily account for the rationality of my reason and the other points I listed above.

There was a third category of analysis that prompted me to reject evolution as well, but as this is now remarkably long, I'm going to stop for the evening. If anyone ever cares to ask, they are free to do so.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2005, 09:24:29 PM »

Wow, this thread is a winner.

valerie · « **Reply #2 on:** October 20, 2005, 12:04:35 PM »

Yeah, it hasn't produced much in response. Since I did read what you wrote and you seem to be lacking in responses...

I am impresssed with your thorough examination of evolution. I certainly cannot claim the same thoroughness. In fact, I don't think I thought about it much beyond my 10th grade biology class.

I don't think I have completely thrown out the science of evolution although I do not believe humans are evolved apes. I do believe that those who adapt will be those who survive. That is overly apparent in every aspect of the world around us. Individuals who pick themselves up after a major tragedy (for example hurricane Katrina), dust themselves off and adapt to being better prepared next time have in essence evolved to a better individual. I think I believe in evolution within a species. For example it seems the median height of the human race has increased over time and that babies are bigger when they are born. That seems evolutionary although I can't imagine WHY we have evolved into being taller and bigger at birth.

Just some thoughts to add to the thread.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #3 on:** October 20, 2005, 02:03:28 PM »

Thanks for chiming in!

We'll see if we get some action here, if not, I'll respond to some of your points.

Stathei · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2005, 02:09:55 PM »

Valerie, that is better nutrition and healthcare, not evolution. For example, Asians who live in America are taller and have higher birthweights than their cousins back home.

valerie · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2005, 07:13:40 PM »

Ah, that makes sense to me. I can believe that. Like I said I have never really thought much about the topic of evolution, I have much to learn or perhaps not learn.

Harry_is_always_right · « **Reply #6 on:** October 22, 2005, 07:56:21 PM »

Just to show you i'm not a blinded person, who will not change any views, your "snapshot" analogy, just made me look at that old problem of consciousness from a new angle. Hmm, yes sounds a fair point, although would not actually discredit materialism, it simply points towards some dire consequences for it.

Heard of property dualism? Not saying i advocate it, but it's an interesting halfway house between substance dualism and materialism.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** October 22, 2005, 09:02:27 PM »

"Just to show you i'm not a blinded person, who will not change any views,"

Refreshing, given certain conversations I've recently had.

"your "snapshot" analogy, just made me look at that old problem of consciousness from a new angle. Hmm, yes sounds a fair point, although would not actually discredit materialism, it simply points towards some dire consequences for it."

If I understand you correctly, I might agree. By 'discredit' you mean 'refute' or otherwise invalidate it, right? If so, then yes, technically speaking it wouldn't necessarily (using that word in its logical sense) mean that a strict materialism is false. The argument I was making was more along the lines of "If this is true, then we cannot with confidence say that it is true."

We could not in confidence say anything is true. It takes hope for a reasoned epistemology out at its knees. I'm actually going to explore this more in the anthropic principle argument with Harry (the other Harry).

"Heard of property dualism? Not saying i advocate it, but it's an interesting halfway house between substance dualism and materialism."

Yes I have heard about it, but I can't put my finger on where. Perhaps in Denton? I don't know. At anyrate, a materialistic basis for a trustworthy epistemology seems to be a pre-requisite for any hope at making materialism a tenable position. As I explained in this thread, I do not believe that evolution does that, in fact, I think it does the opposite.

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2005, 02:48:18 PM »

Sntjohnny, thanks for your lengthy attempt to explain the underpinnings of your skepticism. I confess that I don't fully appreciate the reasons behind your conceptual leaps--e.g. that materialism leads to solipsism--but I respect your effort to explain your epistemology. Just a few comments---

Quote from: sntjohnny

However, the theory of evolution claimed to be able to account for biological life by invoking strictly materialistic processes. However, as I dug into the theory I discovered that its proponents were almost completely oblivious to this larger question about how we know that what we know is real knowledge...

But is this not true of all forms of knowledge except direct experience? Why do you see this as a flaw in the theory of evolution and not, say, creationism? After all, we cannot know for certain that the Bible comes from divine revelation, yet many feel with great conviction that it does. One can certainly embrace evolution and religious spiritualism at the same time. That is, evolution theory does not require you to be a materialist.

Quote

Worse, in terms of epistemology, I was greatly disappointed by the whole theory and have come to consider it the greatest insult to the human race, ever. Its conceptualized idiocy. We are told we DID evolve and the evidence for this is how we COULD have evolved.

I found this claim curious. What is the nature of the insult? Evolution only tries to explain how biological entities adapt to environmental niches. It doesn't try to explain how you know what you know. Moreover, the evidence goes way beyond what you have claimed. It is not a "just so" story. It attempts to explain phenomena as diverse as the fossil record, genes, DNA, speciation, morphological similarities across species, and so on.

Quote

Of course, we 'know' we evolved but no one anywhere can tell us anything about exactly how any of these steps actually DID happen. We are supposed to be satisfied by a very minimal construct that might explain how it COULD have happened.)

Consider the alternatives. Is that not precisely the position of Intelligent Design proponents? Evolution theory is accepted by all biologists, including the few ID proponents among scientists, as sufficiently well-established to be true. It draws on a wide range of evidence to establish its validity. You aren't satisfied with the explanations it does provide, yet you would leap to embrace a belief that provides no explanation whatever. Intelligent agents are somehow responsible for the emergence of some types of complexity, but nobody can define the nature of that complexity, explain the nature of the intelligent agents, or give a reasonable account of how they do it.

Quote

...What does evolution predict? Is anyone willing to put money down on some concrete predictions on the future evolutionary steps of the human race and other organisms?

It predicts that biological organisms will adapt to future environmental changes to the extent that that is possible. To make reasonable guesses, you have to at least know what environmental changes will be like and what the biological competition will be like. Humans might well become extinct in the realtively near future, although we all hope otherwise. Life is resilient, so it is likely that even stranger organisms will evolve than the ones we are familiar with today.

Quote

...So what good is it? Is the best that evolution can give us the argument that we should take our full course of antibiotics if we get sick? Is that all?

That is certainly one solid piece of advice that we get from our knowledge of evolution. It increases our well-being and our chances of survival in many different ways. So the knowledge is tremendously useful to us as a species (as is most scientific knowledge). What more are you expecting from it? To know what you know? That isn't its purpose.

Quote

So, I rejected evolution on epistemological grounds and on utilitarian grounds. If it was true, I reasoned that reason could not in principle be considered reasonable. That was a high price to pay for a theory that would not and could not impact the human race on any substantive level, ever.

Well, that's dead wrong. Biology has had a tremendous impact on the human race--improvements in nutrition, unforeseen medical advances, the promise of even greater changes through bioengineering. Evolution theory is the foundation of biology, and biology has, and will continue to have, a major impact on the human race.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2005, 05:46:21 PM »

"But is this not true of all forms of knowledge except direct experience? Why do you see this as a flaw in the theory of evolution and not, say, creationism?"

No, and probably you are not getting the sense of my argument if you think direct experience to be any kind of exception. Indeed, I suppose I could say that it is 'direct experience' which was the principal target of inquiry at the beginning. I needed to find a solid reason to trust my 'direct experience.' Any theory that could not give me that could not be accepted on principle.

""Worse, in terms of epistemology, I was greatly disappointed by the whole theory ... We are told we DID evolve and the evidence for this is how we COULD have evolved.""

"I found this claim curious. What is the nature of the insult?"

It proceeds from the epistemological argument, which is why I started it out by saying 'in terms of epistemology.'

Evolutionists were not presenting a view that they thought was tenative, or just logically possible, or even empirically possible. Or even empirically probable. It was asserted that "This is most certainly true" in the same way and with the same strength that we are told that an apple falls to the ground at a certain rate of speed is "most certainly true."

In the case of the apple, I could see it with my own eyes any time that I wanted- direct experience. That's good science. But evolutionists wanted to call their theory 'science' based on inferences that were derived by demonstrations of what they thought COULD have happened, even if they thought this inference was justified. Its very important to them that we think their view as 'scientific' as observed gravitational constants.

You might say that I thought they doth protest too much.

"Evolution only tries to explain how biological entities adapt to environmental niches. It doesn't try to explain how you know what you know."

EXACTLY.

And you seem to think this a good thing.

It is that same process that has allegedly produced us, and our ability 'to know what you know.' Stopping short at this important question which concerns a phenemena that is allegedly the result of the SAME theory, is silly, if not duplicitous. You could stop short from explaining human rationality, accepting it by 'default' and that would be just as arbitrary as if I decided to stop short of explaining biological entitites themselves, and accept THEM by default. Human rationality, we are told, is the result of evolution just as our 'useless' appendix is. However, as you say (which is what I said), evolution does not concern itself very much with human rationality, and sticks to the 'easy ones.'

But human rationality is the really interesting question, and it is a necessary starting place, whereas the appendix is completely unnecessary to explain except for curiosity.

"Moreover, the evidence goes way beyond what you have claimed. It is not a "just so" story. It attempts to explain phenomena as diverse as the fossil record, genes, DNA, speciation, morphological similarities across species, and so on."

If you told me that you had lots of lines of historical evidence to justify your inference, I'd grant that. I would say that your view is not 'absurd.'

But you don't want to leave it there. You want also to call it a scientific fact. Well, there is no way within my 'direct experience,' even in principle to detect the phenemona that is inferred.

So, from an EPISTEMOLOGICAL point of view, in regards to evolution something stinks in Denmark.

"Consider the alternatives. Is that not precisely the position of Intelligent Design proponents?"

ID was a recent area of inquiry for me, as was 'creationism.' I know it seems like a linch pin to you, but that is only because recently I had a bunch of threads dedicated to the subjects (consider it a marketing ploy.

0. I've always been an anti-evolutionist, so I can always rise to that fight, but to defend some of the other alternatives out there was a bit different. What I mean to say is that in my journey, having rejected evolution, I did not embrace creationism or ID, instead. These would come later.

"Evolution theory is accepted by all biologists,"

You say this as though it should be meaningful. Perhaps to me this only shows why all biologists should not be trusted.

"It predicts that biological organisms will adapt to future environmental changes to the extent that that is possible."

That is like me predicting that the sun will come up tomorrow. Its not exactly daring.

"To make reasonable guesses, you have to at least know what environmental changes will be like and what the biological competition will be like."

So.... let's pick an environment and biological population where we know these things and see if you can make some really concrete predictions.

In actuality, you were correct to label it only 'reasonable guesses.' Mutation is not predictable, and that's what you'll really need, and you won't be able to know in advance what these mutations are. So, in principle, you are conceding that you cannot offer me a concrete prediction about a future reality. Its not exactly a capability like we find with the observed the laws of physics that allow us to hit an asteroid millions of miles away with a probe, is it?

[in regards to antibiotics] ... "That is certainly one solid piece of advice that we get from our knowledge of evolution."

Except you don't need evolution to know it.

Do we have anything else? Anything really concrete? Can we anticipate any specific major macro changes? Can these be defined, and predicted in detail?

"Well, that's dead wrong. Biology has had a tremendous impact"

Hmmm. Well, in that paragraph I said nothing about biology, did I?

Biology has had a tremendous impact, but not because of its assocation with evolution. I have had some conversations with biologists and probed what it is they actually learned and the relationship between evolution and their duties. So far, they have reported only what I already suspected. Evolution is presented as fact and then ignored. Doctors don't need it, bio-chemists don't need it. Its just not needed. When I asked what they DID spend time learning about that later had application, it was genetics.

So, I'm pretty sure its only propoganda that says that 'evolution is the foundational theory in order to 'understand' biology.' In truth and in practice, it appears to be genetics.

By comparison's sake, it would be like saying you needed to know how operating systems had evolved since DOS to the present in order to understand computer programming. In fact, you don't need to know anything about the history of computers to be a successful programmer.

"Evolution theory is the foundation of biology, and biology has, and will continue to have, a major impact on the human race."

See above.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2005, 06:45:36 PM »

This probably wasn't my best post ever. Had a lot of distractions at home and wrote it over four hours in three separate sittings. Please excuse any ambiguities.

Ragnar · « **Reply #11 on:** October 29, 2005, 07:39:27 PM »

So.... let's pick an environment and biological population where we know these things and see if you can make some really concrete predictions.

We can. Ever see Water World? Bad movie, not a bad premise. If the world were suddenly covered in water, we could predict that humans who were the best swimmers would survive. This ability to swim would be passed on to future generations. People with webbed hands and feet would suddenly have a use for their anachronism, and this trait would become more prevalent over time. The ability to hold one's breath would become of value. Over many generations, I would not be surprised if people started to develop the ability to breathe underwater. Evolution predicts these sorts of things.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #12 on:** October 29, 2005, 08:16:09 PM »

But webbed hands are, as you say, an anachronism. It already exists in the gene pool. The change in environment would not prompt the new change, the environment would only select from the existing genome. Even in this circumstance, the genes for non-anachronistic hands and feet would still exist as well.

What you are suggesting is something that is perfectly consistent with my own viewpoint, which is that there is variation with limits, and the population can express that variation to greater or lesser degrees based on circumstances. I could expand on that, but the most salient point is that what you have suggested is a prediction of evolution is also a prediction that a creationist would make, and probably many IDers. Since it is a prediction that all three would make, it cannot be isolated out for use as substantiation for only one of them.

But it was a good effort. Bad movie, but its good to see it finally come to good use.

Ragnar · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2005, 12:40:07 AM »

I never claimed it disproved ID. You simply asked if evolution could predict what changes would occur given a certain environmental change. The answer is: yes, it can. ID has nothing to do with this particular question.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2005, 08:38:03 AM »

Hmm. Let me explain it again:

Webbed hands and feet are already in the genome, though a rarity. In the situation you are giving, all you are doing is telling me that the frequency of its expression will increase. On the other hand, there is no human that I am aware of that can breathe underwater, thus there is no genetic material to support that that physical reality to be selected for or against in the first place.

A more frequent expression of webbed extremities proves nothing, as all of the major conceptualizations predict that, anyway (of course, only if some of the webbed folk manage to survive the sudden deluge in the first place in order for their genes to pass along), its meaningless to provide it as anything substantial.

I granted your example for the sake of argument, but it fails on a number of levels that I guess I should have expanded on. Here again is what you quoted from me:

"So.... let's pick an environment and biological population where we know these things and see if you can make some really concrete predictions."

I guess I could have really hammered the point home by saying "Let's pick a concrete environment and a concrete biological population..." but I thought 'where we know these things' covered it.

The thing is, you responded with a hypothetical, and I am not interested in leaps in imagination for things we consider to be scientific. That's only an argument from credulity. Do you expect the world to be suddenly flooded anytime soon? I bet we could put you in the camp of folks who say the flood could not have happened because "Where would the water come from" and "Where did the water go." Surely this same apparently incisive criticism of the Genesis deluge means that your hypothetical will never be actual?

Thus, in my response for concrete predictions, specific meaningful testing and observation, in biological populations we KNOW in environments we KNOW, you provided me a hypothetical that upon examination, you'd probably tell me is highly improbable, if not impossible. That puts it in the category of 'could have' rather than 'did have' or 'could happen' rather than 'will happen.'

Even within your hypothetical, it assumes that humans will live through the event. In fact, extinction is probably the more likely event, depending on the extent and breadth of the deluge. There are also assumptions about the size of the population saved built into the hypothetical as well.

dark territory · « **Reply #15 on:** October 31, 2005, 06:27:51 AM »

I have always rejected most of evolution even when I was an atheist. Why? Well because when I was a kid my dad taught us that the world couldn't be more then 9 thousand years old and that God created it in 7 days. Since that is what my dad taught me that is why I rejected evolution but then I grew up.

I figured out that my dad says allot of things with little knowledge of what he is talking about. So I studied and can you believe what I learned. Well I learned that micro evolution is true, but macro evolution is a theory with huge holes. Where are the gaps? Maybe some are buried, but the conclusion of my studies left me realizing something deeper. Creation is the same word as formation which is the same word as evolution Lol....

So I concluded I think logicaly, that regardless of macro evolution or creation what happend, happend. Since there are huge gaps in todays understanding of macro evolution I've concluded that mankind if given enough time may be able to resolve the details but as is well consistent with the growth of science what these details are may change from what we know today or possibly remain theory durring the entire lifetime of all mankind. Regardless be named creation or formation or evolution. A rose by any other name..........

Example.... See evolution of modern architecture.

If anyone is saying um duh at this point keep in mind part of human growth is the ability to laugh at ones own mistakes and accept them. Now it's my turn say um dduh. Often intellect can be most deceptive and certainly isnt superior to reality. I think the roman aristocracy could be used as a great example.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #16 on:** June 01, 2006, 09:13:22 PM »

Quote

I have always rejected most of evolution even when I was an atheist. Why? Well because when I was a kid my dad taught us that the world couldn't be more then 9 thousand years old and that God created it in 7 days. Since that is what my dad taught me that is why I rejected evolution but then I grew up.

I figured out that my dad says allot of things with little knowledge of what he is talking about. So I studied and can you believe what I learned. Well I learned that micro evolution is true, but macro evolution is a theory with huge holes. Where are the gaps? Maybe some are buried, but the conclusion of my studies left me realizing something deeper. Creation is the same word as formation which is the same word as evolution Lol....

So I concluded I think logicaly, that regardless of macro evolution or creation what happend, happend. Since there are huge gaps in todays understanding of macro evolution I've concluded that mankind if given enough time may be able to resolve the details but as is well consistent with the growth of science what these details are may change from what we know today or possibly remain theory durring the entire lifetime of all mankind. Regardless be named creation or formation or evolution. A rose by any other name..........

Example.... See evolution of modern architecture.

If anyone is saying um duh at this point keep in mind part of human growth is the ability to laugh at ones own mistakes and accept them. Now it's my turn say um dduh. Often intellect can be most deceptive and certainly isnt superior to reality. I think the roman aristocracy could be used as a great example.

Bump.

zjohnso2 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 05, 2007, 11:28:32 PM »

Why do men have nipples? Why do humans have tailbones and appendices? Why are female orgasms hardly correlated with sexual intercourse? Why are there oftentimes complications with the female pelvis during birth? Why are 99.8% of our genomes similar to the genomes of chimpanzees? Why are 99.9% of the species in the fossil record now extinct? Why would God have such a fascination with beatles (I believe there are 250,000-350,000 unique species)? Why are completely arbitrary sequences of nucleotides in the genetic code conserved in nearly all species, but with slight variations? Evolution can explain all of these. Creationism and Intelligent Design, as far as I know, cannot (besides of course the fallback answer that 'We can't know because God's plan is too complicated, but we do know He does have some reason for men's nipples. We just can't understand it.). If your problem is how evolution could have created something like consciousness, there is plenty of literature on the subject... And if that's your "disproof", it's extraordinarily weak on many levels. Finally, it is somewhat unreasonable to ask evolutionary biologists to predict the precise evolutionary outcome of a given biological situation, but it is certainly not impossible. Asking us to pinpoint exactly what would happen is difficult, because there are oftentimes multiple solutions to the same problem- for example vision and echolocation to determine the placement of obstacles in an environment. What evolutionary biologists can predict is that evolution will provide a solution to new selective pressures via some phenotypic alteration, but we can't always predict what the exact mutation will be. Given the complexity of interaction between an organism, its environment, and its competitors, it would be difficult to analyze any biological scenario. But actual selective breeding experiments that mimic realistic scenarios in nature are being done all the time. For example, a researcher decided to select for increased wheel running in mice. Of course, an evolutionary biologist would expect the selection process to provide some sort of solution to wheel running. What the researcher found in his 4 lines of mice was that two solutions to the problem were produced. The first was increased motivation for wheel running via increased dopamine receptors in a specific location in the natural rewards circuit, and also an extra muscle in the hind legs (and this gene was not in the original population)! Different solutions occurred in different lines! It seems that you are asking biologists to predict a specific mutation. And by the way, this research DOES have enormous practical applications. Just think about it. If you can't figure it out, the researcher was Rhodes, look up his article and it will spell out the value for you. You may say that the results of this experiment are what ID would predict also, but then what exactly are you looking for? For two different species to emerge? To do something like this experimentally would be nearly impossible in any sort of animal species given their generation times. I'm not sure whether this has been done in bacteria. But are you honestly asking us to perform, in an experiment, what evolutionary theory says takes millions of years to occur? This is ridiculous. This would be like saying prove to me that solar systems can form out of stardust by showing me a video tape of it! It can't be done... sorry. But there is overwhelming evidence to support that it happens. It's also similar to declaring a murderer innocent because there's not a video showing exactly what he was doing immediately before, during, and after the murder. Juries are not usually blessed with such evidence. But they can oftentimes decide that a murderer is almost certainly guilty. The fact is, there's an extraordinary amount of evidence that suggests that evolution has occurred (fossil record, DNA analysis, convergence, etc.)- just like there's evidence that solar systems form out of stardust, and that some murderers are guilty even without absence of a video showing the crime. And don't stretch my analogies beyond the purposes for which they are intended. I know that you aren't asking for a videotape of Earth's history. But you are asking for something that just takes too long to do! We can't create a solar system in an experiment, either, but we can see foreign solar systems in all sorts of stages of development. A sort of snapshot of their lifetimes... just like the fossil record for evolution... And the murder analogy is just supposed to demonstrate that obvious conclusions can be reached even without perfect proof. Just because you can't fathom how consciousness might have arisen doesn't mean that evolution never happened. The claim is bogus. You should buy a book. There are plenty on this very topic.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** January 05, 2007, 11:52:41 PM »

Might I suggest using paragraphs?

"Why are 99.8% of our genomes similar to the genomes of chimpanzees?"

I don't want to put cold water on your rally, here, but that has been softened:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=59622

"Creationism and Intelligent Design, as far as I know, cannot"

The important caveat to that was "as far as I know." I'm glad you included it. You don't know enough about my position to presume I will provide the 'fallback' you suggest.

You are making another one of my points in crystal clear clarity, though: is evolution true in your mind only because it is the only option you think offers an explanation? In other words, do you accept evolution because you can't tolerate the alternatives?

One of the points of my opening post (OP) was that I examined evolution on its own merits. In my opinion, if evolution cannot stand except by contrast, it is very weak indeed.

"If your problem is how evolution could have created something like consciousness, there is plenty of literature on the subject... And if that's your "disproof", it's extraordinarily weak on many levels."

I have quoted you while bolding the important part. Your saying this shows that you did not really understand my point. Granted, this could have been because I didn't explain it very well. You do understand that when most people think of something as a scientific fact they think of something that is demonstrable, repeatable, etc? See for example this recent statement by Dicoll on another thread:

"A claim for a natural event can be re-enacted, re-observed, measured, documented, cross-tested etc. That is the scientific way."

http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php/topic,2248.0.html

I agree with his assessment about what the 'scientific way' is. Don't you? In other words, the 'scientific way' speaks to how something did or does happen. How it 'could have' happen may possibly be construed as 'science' in some contexts, but don't you admit that a demonstration (assuming it was successful) of how something COULD HAVE happened is far less persuasive and concrete as a demonstration of how it DID or DOES happen?

I am not interested in hearing how things 'could happen' when they are being labeled as 'science.'

"Finally, it is somewhat unreasonable to ask evolutionary biologists to predict the precise evolutionary outcome of a given biological situation, but it is certainly not impossible."

Right. So, you see how this works. In another thread an atheist by the name of Dicoll makes the argument that the scientific way concerns things that "can be re-enacted, re-observed, measured, documented, cross-tested etc" but in this thread you (I don't know if you are an atheist or not- it sounds like it) think its 'somewhat unreasonable' to place that expectation on evolution.

But this is really not the point of my OP. The point of my OP was not even a question as to HOW consciousness COULD HAVE arisen, but rather what grounds do we have to trust our rationality in a naturalistic framework, evolution being one example of such a framework. You see the difference? We can be 'conscious' without necessarily being able to trust our rationality.

Evolution is worse off than other naturalistic explanations because it asserts that it works by natural selection, that is to say, it selects mainly for survivability and reproduction. And you don't need rationality for survivablity and reproduction. Evolution can only predict that we are only rational enough to achieve those too factors. If we find that we have a more profound rationality than that, then we are in possession of an observed fact that evolution could not even in principle predict.

The almost neurotic desire to label evolution as being scientific (repeatable, etc) while making excuses for why it is not repeatable is a side point that helps highlight the issue. But it is not THE issue of the OP.

"but we can't always predict what the exact mutation will be."

Actually, as far as I know you can never predict what the exact mutation will be.

"Given the complexity of interaction between an organism, its environment, and its competitors, it would be difficult to analyze any example."

Fine. Let's say I grant you how given the presuppositions involved in accepting that evolution is true means putting an unreasonable burden when asked to look for repeatable, etc, phenonema, and that these complexities ought to be factored into the request. But how likely are you and any other evolutionist going to be when examining creationism and/or ID when it is pointed out that presuming these for the sake of evaluation introduces their own complexities?

Are you not, in fact, making excuses for the failure of evolution to meet the standards typically found in research into light, gravity, etc, while calling the dogs out for creationism and ID?

If you want me to have reasonable expectations (as you define them) fair play suggest you have reasonable expectations about creationism and ID. Right?

"Different solutions occurred in different lines!"

Right. You can't actually predict what mutation will happen. That's the point.

"It seems that you are asking biologists to predict a specific mutation."

Not exactly. In my OP I explained that I rejected evolution for both epistemological reasons and utilitarian reasons. Mutations are practically random by definition, which means that in principle you shouldn't be able to predict them. But mutations are the engine by which evolution drives- which means that evolution actually serves as an explanatory system more than it does a predictive one. In other words, evolution is your explanation for "why men have nippes" "why do humans have tailbones and appendicies" "why are female orgasms... etc" but you have no idea on the paths that these traits followed. As I understand it, no evolutionary explanation for the female orgasism has been found to be tenable even now. But my point is that what you get in evolution is an explanation, basically a 'naturalismdiddit.' That is essentially a faith statement. On utilitarian grounds, if evolution can only be used to provide retroactive explanations, its not much good looking forward- which is what we are typically used to science doing for us.

"You may say that this is what ID would predict also,"

Yea, actually. But this thread is not about that.

"It can't be done... sorry."

Now you've got it.

"But there is overwhelming evidence to support that it happens."

That what happens? As has been pointed out time and time again by smarter heads than me, the 'overwhelming evidence' that evolution happens is 'microevolution' and no one has ever disputed micro evolution. Get out your Bible and turn to Genesis 30:25-36, especially verse 33. This contract does not work without an understanding of 'microevolution.' The problem is, as I said, this 'overwhelming evidence' is just as at home in creationist and ID points of view as it is in macroevolutionary points of view.

As such it supports all three, and if it supports all three, it cannot be singled out to support only one.

But you are really missing the whole point of the OP which is that some reasonable account needs to be generated for why my reason is reasonable. Candidate theories MUST explain why my reason is reasonable. A theory which implies or even argues that my reason is not reasonable is obtained by assuming the very thing it is calling into question and so must be rejected.

That is the point.

"Just because you can't fathom how consciousness might have arisen doesn't mean that evolution never happened. The claim is bogus."

And that is not my claim, as should have been clear enough in the OP. Try again.

"Buy a book. There are plenty on this very topic."

Having just posted your first post on my forum I would think you would be a little less presumptous. I have plenty of books, including a number by Dawkins, Gould, and Mayr, to name a few, as well as college level evolutionary biology text books. As you can see, however, the point of this OP was not to criticize fantasies about how something COULD have happend, but to point out that most people think of a scientific fact as being something that has demonstrated DID happen and as such one would expect that an evolutionary demonstration about WHY REASON IS REASONABLE would rise to those standards. It has nothing to do with consciousness. One supposes that dogs have some measure of consciousness.

Don't buy a book- save your money. :) Just re-read my opening post again and try to catch what my main points really were.

zjohnso2 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 06, 2007, 03:43:10 AM »

First of all, why did you almost entirely avoid the majority of my opening questions? Please answer these:

Why do men have nipples? Why do humans have tailbones and appendices? Why are female orgasms hardly correlated with sexual intercourse? Why are there oftentimes complications with the female pelvis during birth? Why are 99.9% of the species in the fossil record now extinct? Why would God have such a fascination with beatles (I believe there are 250,000-350,000 unique species)? Why are completely arbitrary sequences of nucleotides in the genetic code conserved in nearly all species, but with slight variations?

If you think that a theory in science must be repeatable, then how can science possibly account for any processes that occur on the geological or universal time scales, as opposed to the time scale of a human life. Obviously an experiment cannot be carried out on a geological time scale. Well, I suppose it could, but we wouldn't be around to see the results! But if your claim is that science, therefore, cannot touch any natural process that occurs on the geological, or even universal time scale, and that this all falls into the hands of supernatural speculation, then I'm afraid you have a much different definition of science than is generally accepted.

"I don't want to put cold water on your rally, here, but that has been softened:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=59622"

So what? So there's another way to measure variation? The study says:
"The results do not negate the commonly reported 1.5 percent nucleotide-by-nucleotide difference between humans and chimps."
not to mention that the researchers found a huge similarity between gene families, and that
"Gene families are sets of genes in every organism's genome that are similar (or identical) because they share a common origin,"
and on top of all that the article mentions numerous times that chimps are the most recent, extant ancestors of humans! Your article has done absolutely nothing to strengthen your point, and has only strengthened the case for evolution.

"In other words, the 'scientific way' speaks to how something did or does happen. I am not interested in hearing how things 'could happen' when they are being labeled as 'science.'"

I agree, I'm not interested in how things COULD have happened either. I'm interested in how they PROBABLY HAPPENED. No, I absolutely do not agree with your understanding of science. First, I can find hundreds of definitions of science that would include the study of evolution. You had to turn to a recent post to get a definition that would satisfy you? Second, science attempts to explain through probability. Ever heard of the electron cloud model? We don't know where the electron IS, but we know where it PROBABLY IS based on scientific evidence. Everything is probability. Gravity could be wrong, but 99.9999999% of our observations tend to suggest that it is not. EVERYTHING IS PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE, and evolution PROBABLY happened. In fact, it's a near certainty given the evidence.

"The problem is, as I said, this 'overwhelming evidence' is just as at home in creationist and ID points of view as it is in macroevolutionary points of view."

And how could you possibly claim that the fossil record, DNA analysis, and convergent evolution supports ID and creationism? Please elaborate more than by just saying "they do." How about all the intermediate species found between the primates and homosapiens- austrolapithecines, neanderthals, etc. Please revisit my questions at the top. Are these all not examples of evidence counter to ID and creationism? Explain how they are not.

"In other words, evolution is your explanation for "why men have nippes" "why do humans have tailbones and appendicies" "why are female orgasms... etc" but you have no idea on the paths that these traits followed. As I understand it, no evolutionary explanation for the female orgasism has been found to be tenable even now. But my point is that what you get in evolution is an explanation, basically a 'naturalismdiddit.' That is essentially a faith statement. On utilitarian grounds, if evolution can only be used to provide retroactive explanations, its not much good looking forward- which is what we are typically used to science doing for us."

Where do I start? First of all, yes I do know the paths that these traits probably followed. Nipples and female orgasms most likely are around due to a sort of hitchhiking effect. It's clear as day why orgasms are adaptive for men, and why nipples are adaptive for females. However, as long as they aren't harmful towards the opposite sex, there's no reason why they shouldn't appear there, as well. As for tailbones and appendices, is it not clear that they are vestigial remnants from our primate ancestors? An explanation is not a "faith statement." If my brother is drunk, and his car crashes into a tree, then saying that his intoxication is probably the reason for the accident is not "essentially a faith statement," it's a realistic explanation based on hard evidence. This is PROBABLY what happened. To say that his radio intercepted alien frequencies, causing him to have a siezure and crash would be invoking a supernatural explanation, and this, as we can both agree, is probably NOT what happened. To say that evolution has no predictive value is a complete lie. There are abundant cases in the literature of successful predictions grounded in evolutionary theory. Perhaps these changes are microevolution, but what you define as macroevolution requires microevolution to happen. Long periods of microevolution and isolated, reproducing populations leads to macroevolution. Evolution PREDICTS that the animals on earth will continue to divide into new species, some of which will be successful, and others which will eventually go extinct and join the masses in the VERY REAL FOSSIL RECORD. To argue against evolution on utilitarian grounds is weak.

As far as your epistemological argument goes, I'm still not sure I fully understand it. Are you arguing that evolution cannot explain why your rationality makes sense? The answer seems obvious to me. Rational thought in a universe governed by rational, physical laws of nature would surely prove adaptive. And any thought processes that you couldn't trust would surely get you killed...

"But how likely are you and any other evolutionist going to be when examining creationism and/or ID when it is pointed out that presuming these for the sake of evaluation introduces their own complexities?"

Yes, that IS a problem with ID and creationsim, they INTRODUCE more complexity. What I stated above, that there are complex interactions between organisms, their environments, and their competitors is not INTRODUCING anything. It's an observation- a fact. The interactions are complex, as in any system. Observing that a system IS complex iIS NOT introducing the complexity.

How can you have read those books and still hold on to these convictions? You're clearly an intelligent man, why brush off all of the evidence? It is honestly unbelievable to me, and I feel this is a waste of time. I hope you encourage the scientific method and let your kids decide (can it even be called a decision?) for themselves... I beg you to honestly re-examine the evidence.

Author Topic: Why I rejected Evolution while I was still an atheist... (Read 5906 times)

Stathei